Manohar Yadav @Manohar Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27732 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-456 Year-2023 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Manohar Yadav @Manohar Kumar Yadav SON OF BECHAN YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BISHTORIA PS- RANIGANJ, DIST- ARARIA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 19-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for an offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, 6-7 miscreants came on the motorcycle and they started to demand of key of the motorcycle of the informant and starting assaulting on his head by means of butt of pistol as a result of which, the informant fell down and snatched a mobile and cash of Rs.3,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case and the name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of suspicion and he is in custody since 27.11.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27732 of 2024(2) dt.19-04-2024 2/2

6. On perusal of the first information report, seizure list and impugned order dated 13.02.2024, it appears that specific allegation against the petitioner for committing the occurrence for an offence under Section 395 of the IPC and this incident occurred on 26.11.2023 and one looted Oppo mobile bearing IMEI no.86003506662805 and red colour Hero Xtreme motorcycle bearing registration no. BR-38Z5849 for using this occurrence as mentioned in the FIR and cash of Rs.3,000/- recovered from the pocket of the petitioner and petitioner is also having one criminal antecedent under the Arms Act, so considering all aspects of the material, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T